Talk:Deathrow (video game)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 01:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take it. CR4ZE (t) 01:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   In Gameplay: "One his health is completely depleted, [...]" should read "Once his health".

   • ✓

   "(fast all-female team with European accents)" -- should be "(a fast [...]"?

   • I think it's fine the way it is, as parallel as possible with the other examples

   What is meant by "crowd-pleasing"?

   • elaborated in the following sentence

   In the last paragraph of Gameplay you have two sentences which introduce with "also". Perhaps lose the first use of "also" so it reads "It supports 5.1 surround sound"? Something to make the prose feel less disconnected.

   • ✓

   In Development: "to fulfill their desire to make games from their youth." This sentence needs to be clarified. The source provided explains that the team members had a childhood dream to make video games, but the sentence in question is ambiguous because of the way it is arranged. It could be interpreted as 'the five friends desired to create games inspired by games they played in their youth'.

   • ✓

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   My main concern from a first read-through is with the Gameplay section, which appears to be violating WP:CITEKILL. You have at least one, often two, citations supporting every single sentence. Running a couple of sentences supported by a single citation doesn't make the article less verifiable, and it in fact makes the article look more tidy and less cluttered. Let me take the second paragraph of Campaign as an example. Every sentence is referenced from Hilary Goldstein's review, which is fine by me after reading through the review to check for accuracy. However if the entire paragraph is sourced from the review, why not just cite once at the end of "irrevocably moving on to the next division.[2]"?

   C. No original research:

   Will do a thorough check through of sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Is there any information available about the game's commercial performance to add to the Reception section?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Y File:Deathrow (Xbox) PAL cover.jpg

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Is it possible to provide a gameplay image which complies with WP:NFCC? I feel an image would enhance the reader's understanding of the arena space, and the Sports and Action camera views.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Only a couple small things to fix up. CR4ZE (t) 02:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks, CR4ZE. Re: 2b, I reference as I write so I don't have to come back and verify later. I find that when I don't reference every sentence, I have a problem when someone inserts something mid-paragraph a few months later. As it stands, it's easy to trace for V. So I hear you, but I don't think it's quite near the CITEKILL examples. czar ♔ 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Per CITEKILL; "citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." A paragraph shouldn't have to have multiple citations to negate a hypothetical where another user inserts something that is not supported by the citation. Looking through the revision history, the article is edited fairly infrequently, and there was a drought of edits from September until you picked up the article on November 22. You made a couple clean up edits back in May and didn't touch the article again until last week, so I'm not sure where your concern comes from. CR4ZE (t) 02:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's my editing practice. I missed the section you quoted at first, but meh, it's also an essay and a matter of personal preference. Nothing in the guidelines against it. If you feel strongly about consolidating, I won't put up a fight. czar ♔ 02:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

While CITEKILL is not an official policy, over-referencing is something often brought into consideration in the more meticulous A-Class and FAC processes. It's not grounds to fail the article, no, but I'd still recommend reducing the number of citations to allow for a smoother future progression. CR4ZE (t) 03:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ czar ♔ 03:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• ✓ Added a screenshot czar ♔ 02:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks great. CR4ZE (t) 03:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the review. If by 3a you mean sales numbers, the best I found appeared to be one month's numbers from an unreliable source and not a final count. Its low sales are mentioned in the final section. If you have suggestions for finding sales figures from this era, do let me know. Otherwise I assume they don't exist. czar ♔ 03:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem then. If there's no RS then we can't add that to the article. Will keep my eyes peeled for information though. CR4ZE (t) 03:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Will come back later today to do a thorough check through of the sources. References #4 and #5 are print mediums. Is there a way I can access copies online? Otherwise I may have to consolidate with an additional reviewer to check through them, given that they're both used a great deal through the article. CR4ZE (t) 03:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes: OXM, EGM czar ♔ 03:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sources have been checked through. CR4ZE (t) 03:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

One last observation before I pass the article; given that the developers were Swedish, would the article be better to defer to British English? I believe that's the English standard that's taught in European countries, so words like "energize" would be written "energise". CR4ZE (t) 03:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the article has no MOS:TIES, let's MOS:RETAIN czar ♔ 03:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Result: ✓ Pass - Well done. CR4ZE (t) 04:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)